The Court finds it significant that defendants are
self-described hackers, who say, “We like hacking things and we
don’t want to stop.”

The Court has struggled over the issue of allowing the
copying of the hard drive. This is a serious invasion
of privacy and is certainly not a standard remedy, as the
discussion of the case law above
demonstrates. The tipping point for the Court
comes from evidence that the defendants – in their own
words – are hackers. By labeling themselves this way, they
have essentially announced that they have the necessary
computer skills and intent to simultaneously release the
code publicly and conceal their role in that
act. And concealment likely involves the
destruction of evidence on the hard drive of Thuen’s
computer. For these reasons, the Court finds this is one of
the very rare cases that justifies seizure and copying of
the hard drive.

The case involves Battelle Energy Alliance, a company that is
suing a former employee, Corey Thuen, and his new
company Southfork Security. The dispute is over a software
program called "Sophia" that Thuen developed at Battelle.
Battelle now alleges that Thuen used the code in violation of his
former employment agreement with Battelle.

Winmill appears to envision hackers only as wrongdoers who invade
and disrupt others' computer systems for their own amusement or
benefit.

More recently, when someone self-identifies as a hacker, it
usually means he or she enjoys tinkering with things and figuring
out how they work, and perhaps changing them to make them better.
Facebook's entire corporate culture, for instance, is based
around hacking.

In the case above, the ordinary, modern interpretation of the
word hackers implies that the company simply likes to take things
apart and improve them. But the judge appears to have interpreted
it as meaning the company has a more malicious intent.